Talk:Anti-lock braking system
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anti-lock braking system article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 original German language
- 2 Skid control
- 3 braking distance
- 4 The video from janipewter.
- 5 What is locking?
- 6 Can ABS be defeated?
- 7 Suggestion: ABS and the effect on tires
- 8 Article Quality
- 9 Terminology: "car" versus "vehicle"
- 10 factual problems
- 11 ABS-equipped cars are able to attain braking distances better
- 12 How ironic that an article on Anti Lock breaking is locked
- 13 This article has a lot of quality issues re early history of anti-lock brakes
- 14 Flaw in study
- 15 Origin of the term ABS
- 16 External links modified
- 17 Merge with Anti-lock braking system for motorcycles
- 18 Plural of "ABS" ("ABSs" or "ABSes") is the same principle as the widely accepted plural of "OS" ("OSs" or "OSes"), etc.
original German language
The term "Anti-lock Braking System" was originally coined by Bosch, and the correct German term by Bosch was Anti-Blockier System, hence the ABS acronym. Bosch never actually included the word "brake" in their name. -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 10:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- That may be — have you some documentation to support this account of the origin of the term? — but it seems Antiblockierbremssystem is in wide, accepted, and formal use; see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. If you don't see the word immediately, just do a page search on the partial word antiblockier. Unless there's some solid documentation that Antiblockiersystem is correct and Antiblockierbremssystem is not, it will be best to refer to both in the article. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that the English acronym ABS derives from the German name? Because I think it is much more likely that the English abbreviated form would be derived from the English full form: Anti-lock Braking System. Indeed, this is the position taken by the folks at Merriam-Webster  , American Heritage Dictionary, and Random House Dictionary . The claim that the English abbreviation is derived (independently) from the German full form and not from the English full form is highly dubious from a lexicographical point of view. nohat (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- If the abbreviation were from the English it would be ALB. It isn't. Greglocock (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC
- ALB would be the abbreviation for Anti-Lock Brakes. But that's not what it stands for. ABS stands for Anti-lock Braking System, the title of the article. nohat (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The OED says " ABS n. [perhaps originally after German ABS, initialism < the initial letters of Antiblockiersystem] Motoring anti-lock (occas. anti-locking) braking (or brake) system." (ABS, n. Third edition, June 2011; Oxford English Dictionary. Online version March 2012.)
It does only say "perhaps", but still, it's the OED and this article can't very well ignore the premier authority on etymology without very good reason.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe, to get some clarity on this issue, are there any noteworthy prior uses of the abbreviation ABS previous to Bosch's system of the same name? The significance of Bosch as a major third-party automotive supplier using this name was that they would sell to (and develop/adapt for) each manufacturer worldwide who would like to integrate such a system into their vehicles, as opposed to earlier systems that were developed internally by one company (Chrysler, Ford, Citroen...) and thus not available for, nor meant to be integrated into, competitors' vehicles. These earlier systems all used their respective protected names (Surebrake, Sure-Track...), which could never catch on too much as they were limited to that brand of cars. The Bosch ABS system on the other hand was first integrated (1978) into the Mercedes S-Class, and in 1979 became also available on the competing BMW 7-series. It was soon used by a large number of car manufacturers worldwide who could use this technology without having to go through their own costly development process, and it was always called ABS. That must have done *something* to spread the usage of this abbreviation, right? I'd suppose the abbreviation ABS itself was probably chosen over the competing German abbreviation ABV (Automatischer Blockierverhinderer, which is in use in German transport law and would have to be translated into something like Automatic Locking Prevention, thus requiring a different abbreviation), since it could refer to both the German and an English term (helpful for international sales of the system) - albeit not very elegantly, as the most central term of the English abbreviation, "lock", is not actually abbreviated, hence all the people confusing this abbreviation with "automatic braking system" and the likes. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
When panic strikes there is no steering. Give up the dream and get real. We need brakes that can stop a car faster. The ABS systems on cars today all fail in the required mission. So then they changed the mission. Pulsing the brakes doesn't work. The brakes need to be moderated instantly by reading the point where kinetic friction turns to dynamic friction on that road at that time. That is the maximum amount of braking that can be supplied through the wheels. After that, air bags in the front grille and whatever else can be used to stop the vehicle. If retro rockets need to be employed, then so be it. The insurance companies should pay for some of the research. Which they do. But the old thinking has to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- A rather more realisic alternatoive to your retro rockets is to use intellignet cruise controls, using millimetric radar or cameras to slow the car to prevent it colliding with the one in front. That's happening now. no need to increase mu.Greg Locock (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think you mean 'reading the point where STATIC friction turns to dynamic'. Kinetic and dynamic friction are the same thing. Don't confuse it with viscosity. NoHenry (talk)
The video from janipewter.
Stock baloney. More nonsense for your amusement. You're driving along and listening to the radio or on your cell. Bang a kid is in the way. You need to stop yesterday. If you could drop a hook you'd do it.
What is locking?
This whole article about anti-lock brakes assumes the reader knows exactly what locking is and what causes it. I have no idea. Therefore I have no idea what it is anti-lock brakes are trying to achieve! 18.104.22.168 (talk) 07:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Can ABS be defeated?
The line "On a very slippery surface such as sheet ice or gravel, it is possible to lock multiple wheels at once, and this can defeat ABS (which relies on comparing all four wheels, and detecting individual wheels skidding)." is not entirely correct. In many systems there is a speed sensor attached to the speedometer that detects any high-rate drop in the indicated speed, not compatible with the vehicle's known maximum braking performance, which the computer may interpret as a moving-vehicle-with-locked-wheels situation. Aldo L (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Nonetheless some vehicles that are on the road exhibit this problem. For instance I have a Lexus 400 that will happily drive into a ditch rather than stop on a gravel road. Greglocock (talk) 04:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- There are issues with ABS on ice, snow and loose gravel that increase stopping distance. Unless the road surface is known, and the computer programmed to compensate properly, you will not overcome this. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 17:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion: ABS and the effect on tires
One thing that I noticed wasn't discussed is the relationship between ABS and tire life. On any hard surface, if you were to make a panic stop in a non-ABS car and skid, the locked-up tires can develop flat spots (or even fail completely) where the tire was in contact with the road. Such is not the case with ABS as the tire is essentially rolling all the time, preventing tire damage.
Without getting into the technical bits and trying to factually pick the article over (honestly, I went to school for that already, never again), why does the last few portions look like copy-pasted junk that someone never proofread? I'd put it together myself but it looks like a safety article that got pasted in with no formatting control, and most of it seems irrelevant for a wikipedia entry. Furthermore, "especially when the USA government requires all 2008 and later automotive sold in USA must equip CAN bus." is not entirely accurate. Vehicles between 8,500 and 14,000 US Pounds GVWR may use SAE J1939, which would include most 3/4 ton pickups and upward. Some newer half tons might fit in there too, but I'm not sure.
Maybe it'd be better to just remove all of the junky portion and start over? It's barely readable as it is, let alone wiki-ey..
Addendum #1: And we seem to have pretty much neglected power-boosting, accumulators, and air brake ABS. The first two I really can't see where to point you except OEM system manuals; as for air brake ABS, I believe Bendix published an "Air Brake Manual" that was available in PDF format for a long time. I can't seem to find it anymore, however. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Terminology: "car" versus "vehicle"
It seems the term 'car' and 'vehicle' are used interchangeably throughout this article. Although a quick check with the Merriam-Webster On Line dictionary leads me to think that this does not result in the incorrect usage of either word it does seem to me to be of poor style. Furthermore it may seem to come readers that a car is a more specific term than vehicle -- in North America a 'car' strictly speaking would be considered a relatively small passenger vehicle in comparison to a 'truck' which is often marketed as a larger vehicle aimed at transporting construction materials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoCoolNamesRemain (talk • contribs) 03:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
In the second paragraph of this article someone has written:
"ABS offers improved vehicle control and increases stopping distances on dry and especially slippery surfaces, on loose surfaces like gravel and snow-on-pavement, it can slightly increase braking distance while still improving vehicle control."
I checked the provided citation and could not find any evidence that anti-lock braking systems can slightly increase braking distances on dry surfaces. All evidence I could find (particularly section 2.4, which refers to track testing of abs systems) suggests that abs systems either slightly decrease or have no effect on stopping distances on dry pavement compared to non-abs systems. The text I quoted is probably just a typo, but we need to double check ourselves and make sure everything we write is factually true. If there are no objections, this sentence should be changed.
ABS-equipped cars are able to attain braking distances better
See  page 23, paragraph 3. ... ... for most manoeuvres stopping distances are smaller ... However ... Also, stopping distance on snow and gravel are greater in ABS vehicle. ... --mj41 (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
How ironic that an article on Anti Lock breaking is locked
Could someone edit the article to replace, "...various different..." with either, "various" or, "different". I won't be able to sleep nights while it remains as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- 6 1/2 years later, 188.8.131.52, I've got your back! I found "different variations" and removed the "PREdundancy" of "different" for ya! 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
This article has a lot of quality issues re early history of anti-lock brakes
The earliest automotive application of anti-lock control of braking that I'm aware of is on Duesenberg automobiles in the late 1920s, though it was a mechanical system and obviously not electronic ABS. Someone else may have done it before Duesenberg. Bendix Corporation in the U.S. had some of the earliest patents on electronic anti-lock braking for aircraft landing gear in the 1930s and I believe their system may have been fitted to Douglas aircraft beginning around 1935. Is there someone out there who is sufficiently well-versed on this topic to clean up this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcas2000 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Flaw in study
- There are a number of studies from the early history of ABS that found similar results. A police force from the 1990s had trouble when some of their cars had ABS and some didn't. Officers never knew when they would get a car with ABS. I think my link to that story is in the discussion above. The Berlin cab drivers were not familiar with ABS; it was new in those days.
The reason is that ABS is not a passive safety feature. Drivers have to be trained to change how they drive when they have a car with ABS. They have to ignore the strange pedal vibrations when ABS activates. They have to remember that they can steer and brake at the same time. They have to hold the pedal firmly and not try to pump the brakes themselves. Drivers who have been using non-ABS cars for decades can't just change how they drive overnight.
This has led to some contradictory beliefs about safety, such as Risk compensation. The overall data show that safety technology has drastically reduced traffic casualties, yet early studies often show the benefits don't appear right away. You could say the same about air bags -- you need to change behavior to get consistent seat belt use, and move kids to the back of the car, before you see the safety benefits. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sources: "Police Initiative Cuts Patrol Crashes", Albany Times Union (Albany, New York: HighBeam), December 20, 1998. What happens when modern cars lack ABS, airbags, traction control, etc: . --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Origin of the term ABS
I've noticed a fair amount of articles/books that refer to ABS originating from the German word Antiblockiersystem. I was tempted to edit this but wasn't sure how reliable the info was - does anyone know any better? Loweredtone (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anti-lock braking system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100921074926/http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter07.html to http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter07.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.
Merge with Anti-lock braking system for motorcycles
Anti-lock braking system for motorcycles and this page, Anti-lock braking system should be merged as both focus on the same subject (anti-lock braking system) except one mentions the subject in context of motorcycles while the other does not (a needless distinction) and should be merged. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 21:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that the motorcycle article should be merged with here. It seems very silly to have a separate article for that when it should just be a subset of this one. I'd go ahead and do it but I don't know how to do it properly. If someone wants to teach me how, I'd gladly learn from them!
- I wanted to do the same thing, but it would be really difficult and "TIRE"some (HA!) for me to figure out how to divide things up without someone else's help. Who's willing to give me a good clue on how to proceed? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Plural of "ABS" ("ABSs" or "ABSes") is the same principle as the widely accepted plural of "OS" ("OSs" or "OSes"), etc.
Some guy comes in and acts as if even though we can say "ATMs" as the plural of "ATM," which is "automatic teller machines," we supposedly "can't do the same thing" with "ABS," as "ABSs" ("anti-lock braking systemS"). What a foolish notion to assume. If we can pluralize "ATM" and "PIN" and "VIN" and "LED" and "LCD," etc. as "ATMs," "PINs," "VINs," "LEDs," and "LCDs," among many other initial abbreviations, then why should we not be able to do that with "anti-lock braking systemS" as "ABSs"?
Also, that same ignorant editor is being uncivil with me by falsely accusing my GOOD-FAITH edit as "vandalism." What say ye there?
- I was careful whoM I called ignorant. I thought it through and came to an accurate conclusion that this editor was ignorant of two things: that "ABS" can be pluralized the same way as "ATM," etc., and that he should not be falsely accusing my GOOD-FAITH edit as supposed "vandalism," the same way as people tell others not to assume good faith as "vandalism."
- So now why do you believe we should leave the article as status-quo instead of removing redundancies by correctly pluralizing "ABS" as "ABSs" in the same way as we pluralize any other initialism?
- I was requested to share my thoughts on this topic by the I.P. address contributor, and I must agree that "ABS system" is better than "ABSs". If I had encountered the edit, like the other editor did, I would have also reverted the contribution but not regarded it as vandalism. The article should stay as "ABS system" from now on. (Regushee (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC))text like this This discussion is an invitation to a troll war...not gonna do it (Regushee (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC))
- Wow, Regushee, is this how Wikipedia works now: when we can't find a real ground to back our argument on ("it just sounds silly because 'ABS' and 'OS' already ends with an s, so therefore the redundancy 'anti-lock braking system systemS' 'makes more sense' than abbreviation of 'anti-lock braking systemS' does"), we thrown a childish tantrum by calling other editors rude names and using other insults on them--your edit summary: "grammar trolls looking for a fight...erm...debate," and suggest that we not follow the B/R/D procedure by actually having the "D" part of it?
- Yeah, "really mature" there, regushee. This was never a "troll war." It's an attempt to show people why pluralizing the abbreviation directly is better than having a ridiculous redunancy, and some of us are actually following the B/R/D cycle, unlike you. What is trolling, however, is when someone comes in and tries to tell a group that doing something a certain way or not doing it a certain way is supposedly "better," but then just plays childish games like throwing insults because he can't figure out a real, logical way to back his unfounded opinion up.
- Your latest reply here, as of this writing (see my time stamp, of course), including your immaturely uncivil edit summary that came with it, is another piece of evidence that just blindly inviting any fairly recent editor of the article or its talk page to the new discussion table is the wrong methodology. I'll bet that Chris Cunningham (Thumperward) would agree with me when I say, "Congratulations for kicking yourself out of the discussion, and therefore also out of the consensus-building body of editors, so that you don't have a vote in the outcome as the next edit comes along." Right, Chris C.?
- Doesn't matter Find something bigger to convene a formal tribunal about. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Chris Troutman was plainly wrong to summarily revert this, and if he doesn't understand that WP:STATUSQUO is not a license for any random dude to hit the undo button at any time then his edit button should be removed from him. It's possible that there is a better answer here, but anything is better than the current wrongness. Unless someone who actually understands the process by which our encyclopedia is improved suggests a better alternative promptly, then the IP's suggestion should (and will) be restored. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, Chris C. (Thumperward), for recognizing the problem of redundancy that I was trying to correct, and for recognizing that chris t. was out of line--but not only him, obviously. Do you know some other editors who recognize tautology when they see it?
- Why, Dennis Bratland? You're trying to tell me that I should not do the "D" part of "B/R/D" now?
- Wow, Regushee, from now on I should interview editors before letting them know about a discussion I have in place, just so I know which ones are sensible and which are not. Why does it sound stupid to you: just because it ends with an s? That's the only difference between "ABSs" and the other examples I brought up, that you know are correct. Let's see if I can find some other S-ending initialisms and see if you want to shame the plural form of them too, OK? Oh! How about "OSs" or "OSes"? Ya got a problem with that one too?
- (By the way, my IP address is dynamic, just in case anyone wondered about that too.) 18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Returning to the subject matter... has anyone considered ABS's? A quick Google brings up quite a few style guides that prefer this. There is a good deal of discussion as well though. Have a look here for example. Another quite equivocal piece is here, although that talks about pluralising words ending in "S" rather than initialisms. – Kieran T (talk) 10:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- We haven't left the subject matter, so where did you get "returning" from?
- No, we don't and shouldn't consider "ABS's," because most printed grammar books I've heard of, including Keys for Writers, says never use an apostrophe to try to form a plural, except in 2 cases: when pluralizing a word or letter to refer to the word or letter itself (not to the meaning of the word or what the initialism stands for), or to pluralize numbers when just adding an s might confuse the the s as part of the numbering scheme (as in "How many 5's are there in this math problem?" vs. O"iPhone 5s"). And why should we have to pluralize "ABS" that way when there's already an obvious difference between the two Ss: one's capital and the other is lower-case? Or I would also accept "ABSes," but I've read that "OSs" ("operating systems") is used more than "OSes," so that's why I changed what I wrote from "ABSes" to just"ABSs." No, please do not use "ABS's" to try to form the plural, just as we don't write "OS's" to form the plural of the initialism of "operating system."
- At least some prominent style guidelines advocate for apostrophes when pluralising abbreviations, but I agree that in general it looks illiterate. (As for -es over -s, I personally use it, but that's neither here nor there.) The best approach here is simply to avoid pluralising the abbreviation where possible, and use something like "such systems" instead. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ughhh, I don't see why anyone should push anyone else into not pluralizing an initialism just because the last initial happens to be the same letter as the one used to form the plural. There's no reasonable logic in that at all, which is why these so-called "editors" with the baseless concern have refused to discuss it: the simple matter is that they're just not able to back themselves up with any kind of sound logic. Simply put, their sad excuses for "arguments" (really nonexistent) have nothing better than "We're just not used to hearing it that way" written all over them. That's not a good reason to not allow these corrections, because the disallowance is logically senseless from all angles.
- Psst... they're not discussing it, but they're not reverting it anymore, either. So... because it still is the way we both like it, I'd say just let the sleeping dogs lie now. ;-) Oh, except... what about reporting regushee for both the uncivil behavior of falsely calling us "trolls" and the uncivil behavior of refactoring nearly the whole of one of my replies here into nothingness with his reply, which, had I done, other editors would've been all over me for?
The point of these discussions is to work out acceptable compromises which improve the project, not to score points or win wars. And reporting editors is done solely to prevent ongoing disruption, not to punish past actions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm already aware that we're not discussing this to supposedly "win a war," but just to do what we've done, which is to show how to avoid a redundancy by properly pluralizing an initialism. But as for incivility, then why have I seen so many editors reporting others for incivility (which they make out to be such a big deal here on the Wiki) and successfully getting uncivil editors (doing the same kinds of things) blocked for at least a little while?
- 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)